Sunday 1 December 2013

Netanyahu: Crying wolf again

Netanyahu: Crying wolf again

Furious with the P5+1 for signing a deal with Iran, Netanyahu once again threatens to take military action unilaterally.

Last updated: 30 Nov 2013 11:21
Akbar Ganji

Akbar Ganji is one of Iran's leading political dissidents and has received over a dozen human rights awards for his efforts. Imprisoned in Iran until 2006, he is the author of The Road to Democracy in Iran, which lays out a strategy for a non-violent transition to democracy in Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims that Iran is after the physical destruction of Israel and wants to create a new Holocaust. This is a false claim. The meaning of the statements by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is that the Islamic Republic seeks a referendum in which all the Palestinians, as well as Jews and Christians of the historical Palestine, would participate, and through which the "government" of Israel would be de-established.

The reality is that Iran does not present an existential threat to the people of Israel. It is, in fact, Israel that is a serious threat to Iran. 

Former Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, anticipated the extent of a retaliatory response by Iran to an Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities to be limited to an estimated "500 death". "I don't think the result would be a world war or even a regional war," Yuval Steinitz, Israeli Minister of International Relations and Minister of Strategic Affairs, said on June 23. "I think Iran's possibilities to retaliate are very limited. It's also not in their interest to start a drawn-out war with the US. After all, their relations in the region are rather sensitive. I suppose there would be a response of two or three days of missile fire, perhaps even on Israel, on American bases in the Gulf. But I don't think it would be more than that - very limited damage."

The message is twofold: Israel is contemplating a military strike on Iran and it is, therefore, Israel, not Iran that is a menace to the security of a sovereign nation. Moreover, in the event of a military strike, Iran would be unable to present a serious threat to the security and the existence of Israel.

Diversionary tactic
IRAN DEAL
 Shifting the focus
 Questions beyond the deal
 Iran's nuclear history
 Timeline of Iran's nuclear programme
  Mixed reactions
The very nature of the negotiation process is threatening to Israel because it will expose its attempts to instil "Iranophobia" in the world: A quest for an excuse to divert attention from its apartheid regime that treats millions of Palestinians in the most inhumane and discriminatory manner. As put by Jimmy Carter inPalestine: Peace not Apartheid, "Israel's continued control and colonisation of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacle to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East." General James Mattis, who commanded US forces in the Middle East until March, also said that expanding the settlements would turn Israel into an apartheid state.

When the last round of negotiations were held in Geneva in early November, Netanyahu, while admitting his role in sabotaging efforts to reach a nuclear accord with Iran, pledged to mount an all-out Israeli effort to prevent what he called a "bad agreement" between Iran and the P5+1.

Who is the warmonger?
In the past 275 years, Iran has never initiated an attack on any country. In its little more than 60 years in existence, Israel, on the other hand, has not only illegally occupied Palestinian lands, as well as the Golan Heights that belong to Syria, it has also attacked and bombed other Arab countries in the region, such as Tunisia, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Over the last year alone, Israel has bombed Syria six times. 

Israeli officials expressed frustration with the Obama administration for confirming the latest airstrikes bycalling the confirmation "scandalous" and "unthinkable". 

Key Terms Of The Deal
What Iran must do
  • Halt enrichment above five per cent.
  • Dismantle technical connections required to enrich above five per cent.
  • Not install additional centrifuges of any type.
  • Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.
  • Not construct additional enrichment facilities.
  • Not commission or fuel Arak reactor.
  • Provide daily access to IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow sites.
  • Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly, production and storage facilities.
  • Provide design information for Arak reactor.
What world powers offer in return
  • Not impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months
  • Suspend some sanctions on gold and precious metals, cars and petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion. 
  • Allow purchases of Iranian oil at their current levels.
  • License safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines.
  • Allow $400m in governmental tuition assistance to be transferred from restricted funds directly to educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students.
Israel's legendary former Defence Minister Moshe Dayan once said, "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." Netanyahu is now fabricating a new story, this time against Iran. He angrily warns that Iran would be getting "the deal of the century". "The Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva - as well they should be, because they got everything and paid nothing," said Netanyahu on November 8. "Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people."  
What is the reason behind such brazen lies?

"I can understand why Netanyahu is so furious," said Giora Eiland, a former Israeli National Security Adviser. "A unilateral military option would have no real chance now. Not because we can't do it, but because it would be seen as moving against the whole international community," he told Reuters. "That is something Israel cannot afford."

"Netanyahu's worst nightmare is about to come true," said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "This is not just Netanyahu. This is the position of everyone in the Israeli security establishment."
"Netanyahu is unwise to challenge US so openly/dismissively on possible Iran nuclear deal," tweeted Nicholas Burns, a former senior US diplomat. "Netanyahu's outburst was a serious tactical error."

President Obama said that the new interim agreement with Iran "blocks Iran's path to nuclear weapon". Netanyahu is furious because if the accord between Iran and the P5+1 leads to proving that Iran is not seeking to make the bomb, there will be little wriggle room for Israel to divert the world's attention from the most inhumane treatment that millions of Palestinians receive.

Netanyahu is frustrated because he is fundamentally against Iran having access to nuclear energy, even for purely civilian purposes. He believes that Israel, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has a "special right" to have hundreds of nuclear bombs, but that Iran, a member of the NPT, should not have the right to peaceful use of nuclear technology and should be subject to the most crippling economic sanctions, even though Iran has reiterated time and again that its programme is for peaceful purposes.

Not good for Israel 
Netanyahu is dangerous not only for Iran, but also for Israel and its people. If Israel launches military strikes on Iran, the repercussions will be grave, not only for Iran and Israel, but also for the entire region. The government of Israel is in the habit of launching brazen strikes on other sovereign nations on mere suspicion that they pose a threat to Israel security. It is routinely dictating what rights other countries may or may not have based on whether it thinks those rights may endanger its security. 

As if it is the government of Israel, a non-NPT member that has usurped the prerogative of NPT, to determine who can or cannot have access to nuclear energy. Netanyahu constantly manufactures crises to make people forget about Palestinians and the two-state solution. He is a threat, not only against the rest of the world, but also against his own people.

Akbar Ganji is one of Iran's leading political dissidents and has received over a dozen human rights awards for his efforts. Imprisoned in Iran until 2006, he is the author of one book in English, The Road to Democracy in Iran, which lays out a strategy for a non-violent transition to democracy in Iran.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Stealing the voice of marginalised communities often leads to misrepresentation of their stories.

The Almond Tree: When novels distort legacies of struggle

Stealing the voice of marginalised communities often leads to misrepresentation of their stories.

Last updated: 30 Nov 2013 17:42
Susan Abulhawa

Susan Abulhawa is a Palestinian writer and the author of the international bestselling novel, Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury 2010). She is also the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, an NGO for children.

Edward Said showed us how fiction has sometimes been used to perpetuate oppression. This is particularly apparent when white privilege narrates marginalised lives without navigating ethical considerations inherent to the task of representing historic wounds and enduring struggles of another people.

Some want to "expose injustice" through fiction. While such impulse is admirable, when coupled with racist assumptions or lack of emotional comprehension of a people's culture, the result is often muting of already marginalised voices, theft of their narrative, stripping of their agency, and caricaturising of their humanity.

A stolen narrative
Some of the most popular fictional narratives about African Americans, written by white authors, conform to this. A good example is The Help by Kathryn Stockett, a recent bestseller written through the voice of African American domestic workers in white Southern homes in the 1960s. Although portrayed sympathetically, black women in this book appear as different iterations of the same antebellum plantation Aunt Jemima or Mammy archetype that White Americans love to love. The Association of Black Women Historians (ABWH) criticized this resurrection of Mammy, "a mythical stereotype of black women who were compelled, either by slavery or segregation, to serve white families. Portrayed as asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites, the caricature of Mammy allowed mainstream America to ignore the systemic racism that bound black women to back-breaking, low paying jobs where employers routinely exploited them."  

But Mammy sells. She's a hero which makes non-black readers feel good about themselves for having loved a black character. A fictional black personality who might express enmity toward white people as a whole - perhaps the mildest natural reaction to the pervasive and persistent white savagery at the time - will not have similar appeal.

The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.
-Teju Cole, Nigerian-American novelist
Although this story takes place during a time when black men and women were being lynched and burned alive to cheering white spectators, as ABWH points out, the black men are depicted as drunks or wife-beaters who abandon their families, while the white male characters are strong fathers and husbands. It is also worth noting that Abilene Cooper, a woman who had worked as a domestic servant for Stockett's family, claimed (rather convincingly) that the author had stolen her life story, down to the name of a principal character, "Aibileen".
Israelising a Palestinian story

Michelle Cohen-Corasanti's debut novel, The Almond Tree, is yet another example. Like The Help, this narrative creates sympathy with the oppressed (in this case, Palestinians) by enumerating the litany of injustices they must endure. Cohen-Corasanti, a Jewish White American woman of considerable privilege, said in an interview that she wrote this novel because she "wanted to bring about peace between Palestinians and Israelis" and to show that "we are all human beings and we're all equal."
In this context, a quote from novelist Teju Cole comes to mind: "The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm."

Cohen-Corasanti said she wanted to show how a "Palestinian and Israeli could overcome obstacles and work together to advance humanity." By "obstacles" she means the wholesale destruction of Palestinian society, use of the most advanced weaponry against principally unarmed civilians, demolition of homes, daily humiliation at hundreds of checkpoints, colour-coded license plates, Israeli-only roads, segregated buses, assassinations, imprisonment without charge or trial, theft of land and water, theft of homes and dignity, bombing of schools, curfews, deportations, multiple generations of refugees, and the general erasure of Palestine off the map.

Her idea was to create "the perfect Jewish woman" (Nora) for her protagonist, Ichmad, an unlikely, insufferable Palestinian man. Nora is later killed in a brazen insensitive event stolen from the life and murder of Rachel Corrie.  Ichmad's next wife, Yasmine, is a simple-minded Palestinian who can't hold a candle to Nora. She "wasn't tall like Nora. Her facial features weren't delicate like Nora's; they were hidden in layers of baby fat. Her teeth were yellow and crooked and she was plump…How could I bring her to the States? How would she ever fit in at faculty parties?" On their wedding night, Ichmad pretends she is Nora. "Yasmine lay on the bed without movement, like dead meat." The insults, and Ichmad's contempt for his people, don't end.
As Teju Cole remarks: The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.”

Regarding the protagonist's name, "Ichmad" is how Israelis pronounce Ahmad, the second most common name across the Arab world. Even Palestinian reviewers who liked this book couldn't stomach this Israelisedversion. Cohen-Corasanti claims "Ichmad" is an authentic pronounciation in the Triangle. I am familiar with the fellahi dialect in Um-el-Fahm, Taybeh and other Palestinian villages that make up the Triangle. No one pronounces Ahmad with "Ich" sound.
When we are robbed of everything, broken and humiliated, the false saviours step in, colonise our wounds and bring our pain under their purview.
In fact, "Ichmad" is a form of an Arabic verb meaning to suffocate or subdue. Had the author consulted with a Palestinian or Arabic linguist, she'd have known that. But, according to her, in the seven years that it took to write this novel, she hired six editors: five Jewish, one Christian Fundamentalist, and all clearly lacking expertise in her subject matter. That alone speaks to the carelessness and arrogance with which Cohen-Corasanti approached Palestinian lives. That she did not conceive of hiring a Palestinian editor gives a lie to her avowed values of equality and partnership.
A Palestinian editor likely would have objected to another name: Professor Menachem Sharon (Menachem Begin meets Ariel Sharon - Grand Wizards of war criminals and wanton murders). Cohen-Corasanti mixes these two monsters to create a name for her Nobel Laureate professor character, who takes Ichmad under his wings.  

Ichmad, whose family is impoverished by Israel, is a math prodigy who studies on a scholarship in an Israeli university in Jerusalem. Aside from the fact that most Palestinians in the West Bank cannot enter Jerusalem, much less go to university there (on a scholarship, no less), the notion that the path to success is necessarily through the oppressor's educational system is a typical supremacist assumption. It happens that even under the horrors and limitations of Israeli occupation, Palestinians have managed to build 26 institutions of higher education in the tiny enclaves of the West Bank and Gaza.

Racism in writing
Since publication of The Almond Tree, the author has hired a Palestinian actor to "play" Ichmad in an interactive website, effectively commercializing Palestinian misery and humiliation.
Even irrelevant details are offensive. Only in the most orientalist imaginations would a Palestinian groom lift the veil of his bride with the tip of a sword. And only in the mind of a white American socialite does a poor brown Palestinian college student have only "homemade clothes" and must borrow someone's bellbottoms to wear to a party - as if "homemade clothes" are cheaper than a cheap pair of jeans; as if his family ran a sewing machine from their tent; as if residents of shantytowns the world over don't wear store-bought clothes.

An excellent review by Vacy Vlazna details other ways in which this racist, orientalist novel serves to make a hero of a self-loathing obsequious Palestinian cartoon of a man, and makes a pitiful villain of his brother, Abbas, who opts to defend his family and people by whatever means necessary. Vlazna also points out how the "bad" Palestinians are of darker skin colour in this novel. Her review, however, is a lone voice in a sea of praise extolling this novel. The Huffington Post predicts it will be the greatest seller of the decade. Sadly, they may be right, and, like The Help, it will eclipse authentic accounts of what it means to inhabit a world that considers you a lesser form of human.  

Thus, a people's narrative is commandeered. When we are robbed of everything, broken and humiliated, the false saviours step in, colonise our wounds and bring our pain under their purview. And they profit from filling our cultural legacies with their racist assumptions, orientalist distortions and inglorious heroes of small subservient character.

Teju Cole: “The white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, founds charities in the afternoon, and receives awards in the evening”

As close as I feel to African-American culture and as much as I think I know about anti-black racism, I cannot imagine presuming to know enough to write from an African-American character’s voice about deep current and historic pain that I have neither lived nor inherited, but in fact have benefited from by virtue of living in a country and in an economy built from the ineffable misery of the Maafa, holocaust of slavery

 I think such presumption cannot come from noble or enlightened sentiments. Although seemingly distant topics, both books come from a master narrative that perverts another people's truth to fit within the framework of a neoliberal white supremacy cloaked in sympathy and pseudo-solidarity.

Susan Abulhawa is a Palestinian writer and the author of the international bestselling novel, Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury 2010). She is also the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, an NGO for children.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/almond-tree-when-novels-distort-legacies-struggle-20131114102216116623.html

The war on democracy

The war on democracy

How corporations and spy agencies use "security" to defend profiteering and crush activism
Nafeez Ahmed
A stunning new report compiles extensive evidence showing how some of the world's largest corporations have partnered with private intelligence firms and government intelligence agencies to spy on activist and nonprofit groups. Environmental activism is a prominent though not exclusive focus of these activities.
The report by the Center for Corporate Policy (CCP) in Washington DC titled Spooky Business: Corporate Espionage against Nonprofit Organizations draws on a wide range of public record evidence, including lawsuits and journalistic investigations. It paints a disturbing picture of a global corporate espionage programme that is out of control, with possibly as much as one in four activists being private spies. 
The report argues that a key precondition for corporate espionage is that the nonprofit in question:
"... impairs or at least threatens a company's assets or image sufficiently."
One of the groups that has been targeted the most, and by a range of different corporations, is Greenpeace. In the 1990s, Greenpeace was tracked by private security firm Beckett Brown International (BBI) on behalf of the world's largest chlorine producer, Dow Chemical, due to the environmental organisation's campaigning against the use of chlorine to manufacture paper and plastics. The spying included:
"... pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings."
Other Greenpeace offices in France and Europe were hacked and spied on by French private intelligence firms at the behest of Électricité de France, the world's largest operator of nuclear power plants, 85% owned by the French government.
Oil companies Shell and BP had also reportedly hired Hackluyt, a private investigative firm with "close links" to MI6, to infiltrate Greenpeace by planting an agent who "posed as a left -wing sympathiser and film maker." His mission was to "betray plans of Greenpeace's activities against oil giants," including gathering "information about the movements of the motor vessel Greenpeace in the north Atlantic."
The CCP report notes that:
"A diverse array of nonprofits have been targeted by espionage, including environmental, anti-war, public interest, consumer, food safety, pesticide reform, nursing home reform, gun control, social justice, animal rights and arms control groups.
Many of the world's largest corporations and their trade associations - including the US Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Monsanto, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Burger King, McDonald's, Shell, BP, BAE, Sasol, Brown & Williamson and E.ON - have been linked to espionage or planned espionage against nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers."
Exploring other examples of this activity, the report notes that in Ecuador, after a lawsuit against Texaco triggering a $9.5 billion fine for spilling 350 million gallons of oil around Lago Agrio, the private investigations firm Kroll tried to hire journalist Mary Cuddehe as a "corporate spy" for Chevron, to undermine studies of the environmental health effects of the spill.
Referring to the work of US investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill, the report points out that the notorious defence contractor Blackwater, later renamed XE Services and now Academi, had sought to become "the intel arm" of Monsanto, the agricultural and biotechnology corporation associated with genetically modified foods. Blackwater was paid to "provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm."
In another case, the UK's Camp for Climate Action, which supports the decommissioning of coal-fired plants, was infiltrated by private security firm Vericola on behalf of three energy companies, E.ON, Scottish Power, and Scottish Resources Group.
Reviewing emails released by Wikileaks from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor, the report shows how the firm reportedly "conducted espionage against human rights, animal rights and environmental groups, on behalf of companies such as Coca-Cola." In one case, the emails suggest that Stratfor investigated People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) at Coca-Cola's request, and had access to a classified FBI investigation on PETA.
The report uncovers compelling evidence that much corporate espionage is facilitated by government agencies, particularly the FBI. The CCP report examines a September 2010 document from the Office of the Inspector General in the US Justice Department, which reviewed FBI investigations between 2001 and 2006. It concluded that:
"... the factual basis of opening some of the investigations of individuals affiliated with the groups was factually weak... In some cases, we also found that the FBI extended the duration of investigations involving advocacy groups or their members without adequate basis…. In some cases, the FBI classified some of its investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its 'Acts of Terrorism' classification."
For instance, on an FBI investigation of Greenpeace, the Justice Department found that:
"... the FBI articulated little or no basis for suspecting a violation of any federal criminal statute... the FBI's opening EC [electronic communication] did not articulate any basis to suspect that they were planning any federal crimes….We also found that the FBI kept this investigation open for over 3 years, long past the corporate shareholder meetings that the subjects were supposedly planning to disrupt... We concluded that the investigation was kept open 'beyond the point at which its underlying justification no longer existed,' which was inconsistent with the FBI's Manual of Investigative and Operational Guidelines (MIOG)."
The FBI's involvement in corporate espionage has been institutionalised through 'InfraGard', "a little-known partnership between private industry, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security." The partnership involves the participation of "more than 23,000 representatives of private industry," including 350 of the Fortune 500 companies.
But it's not just the FBI. According to the new report, "active-duty CIAoperatives are allowed to sell their expertise to the highest bidder", a policy that gives "financial firms and hedge funds access to the nation's top-level intelligence talent. Little is known about the CIA's moonlighting policy, or which corporations have hired current CIA operatives."
The report concludes that, due to an extreme lack of oversight, government effectively tends to simply "rubber stamp" such intelligence outsourcing:
"In effect, corporations are now able to replicate in miniature the services of a private CIA, employing active-duty and retired officers from intelligence and/or law enforcement. Lawlessness committed by this private intelligence and law enforcement capacity, which appears to enjoy near impunity, is a threat to democracy and the rule of law. In essence, corporations are now able to hire a private law enforcement capacity - which is barely constrained by legal and ethical norms - and use it to subvert or destroy civic groups. This greatly erodes the capacity of the civic sector to countervail the tremendous power of corporate and wealthy elites."
Gary Ruskin, author of the report, said:
"Corporate espionage against nonprofit organizations is an egregious abuse of corporate power that is subverting democracy. Who will rein in the forces of corporate lawlessness as they bear down upon nonprofit defenders of justice?"
That's a good question. Ironically, many of the same companies spearheading the war on democracy are also at war with planet earth - just last week the Guardian revealed that 90 of some of the biggest corporations generate nearly two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions and are thus overwhelmingly responsible for climate change.
Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

World Fights Back Against the Biggest Brother in History


World Fights Back Against the Biggest Brother in History


The United States’ vast and indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of ordinary people and heads of state has no historical precedent. Now countries around the world are fighting back using the United Nations as a vehicle for change. In a move that received little media coverage in the U.S., a United Nations committee approved without a vote a draft resolution entitled “The Right to Privacy in a Digital Age.” The nonbinding resolution, which will now head to the General Assembly where it has broad support, follows from a reportpublished in June by the United Nations Human Rights Council. It detailed the negative impact of state surveillance on free expression and human rights and lamented that technology has outpaced legislation.

The remarkable U.N. draft resolution affirms privacy as a human right, on par with other globally recognized civil and political rights. Several leading advocacy groups, including Access Now, Amnesty International, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch and Privacy International, signed an open letter to the U.N. General Assembly backing the resolution. The letter stresses the “importance of protecting privacy and free expression in the face of technological advancements and encroaching State power.”

Carly Nyst, the head of international advocacy at Privacy International, told me, “This resolution could not be more important. At the moment we’re seeing serious threats to the protection of the right to privacy in the form of [National Security Agency] spying but also in the form of other surveillance practices that are taking place across the world. We think that voting in favor of this resolution is a really important stand for states to take so that they will no longer stand for global surveillance practices undertaken by the U.S. and others. This is a pivotal moment.”

Opposition to the U.N. resolution has come primarily from a small alliance of countries that share surveillance data, known as the “Five Eyes” (the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia). These five countries are party to a secret treaty originally signed by the U.S. and U.K. in 1941, which came to light only in 2010. Little is known about the details of the agreement. According to Nyst, “We know that there is a very, very high level of integration between the intelligence services of each of the [Five Eyes] countries to the extent that Americans are working out of Australian bases, the British are working out of New Zealand bases, etc. That information is shared, almost is standard across all five countries and there is no such thing as a no-spy deal. That means that even though they have a very high level of cooperation there are also instances in which they are spying on each other.” Nyst added, “It’s a completely secret, covert arrangement that implicates the privacy rights of almost everyone who uses the Internet.

Despite the best efforts of the Five Eyes nations to weaken the U.N. draft resolution on privacy, opposition to U.S. spying is so strong that most of the original language remains unchanged. According to The Guardian newspaper, the only major compromise has been to drop a reference linking human rights violations to extraterritorial surveillance.The U.S. also fought to limit the jurisdiction over privacy rights to countries themselves, but lost. That point underscores what many around the world see as a double standard between how the NSA spies on Americans versus non-Americans. The U.N. draft resolution enshrines the protection of privacy of all people equally.

According to Katitza Rodriguez, international rights director of the U.S.-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Most of the discussion around NSA spying in the United States has focused on the privacy rights of Americans because our laws only protect Americans but do not extend those protections outside U.S. borders. The U.N. resolution makes clear that privacy is an international universal human right and states have the obligation to protect privacy not only at home but also abroad.”

What has lent the resolution greater weight was that it was sponsored by two major nations: Germany and Brazil, whose leaders, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Dilma Rousseff, were alleged to have been spied upon by the NSA. Nyst admitted that “Unfortunately, even though we knew months ago that the German people and the Brazilian people had been spied upon, it was not until the leaders of those countries found that they were also under the microscope, that they really were quite enraged and decided to take action at the international level. That is the unfortunate reality that until these practices were shown to affect the leaders of the highest level of power, it wasn’t necessarily politically useful for them to make a stand against the U.S.”

Nyst takes issue with nations, such as Brazil, that want to pursue electronic independence by developing their own Internet infrastructure to counter U.S. surveillance. She says, “In fact it would not necessarily be of benefit to Internet users if countries decided to splinter off to create their own networks to protect from U.S. spying. Actually one of the most important parts of the Internet which really guarantees our freedom to look at what we like online and to say what we like online is the decentralized nature of the Internet where no one country has control over it.”

Nyst fears that “If the result from this NSA scandal is that countries like Brazil and Germany—perhaps with good reason—decide that they want to splinter off and start protecting their citizens by establishing their own Internet, actually what we might see is a real balkanization of the Internet. And that means that citizens of some countries will have much worse protections than they previously have had. If a country like Russia or Iran or China followed their lead and said, ‘Well we too are going to establish our national Internet,’ then that would drastically disadvantage the citizens of that country. That’s the last thing that we as Internet advocates want to see.”

Treating privacy as a fundamental, internationally recognized human right may offer the best protection to ordinary people from all countries. But even Americans, who are ostensibly better protected legally, have found that their privacy is often routinely violated and that they cannot do anything about it.

The U.N. resolution, if it passes, would lack enforcement mechanisms. The question then arises, what is the point? According to Rodriguez, it “definitely makes clear what is the standard to protect privacy globally and if the U.S. doesn’t comply with it then they will be in violation of international law. And that’s a huge problem because the United States has been seen as a champion of promoting free expression in the United Nations. So having them taking a position that infringes upon international law is not good for the reputation of the United States’ foreign policy.”

It is likely that the U.N. General Assembly will debate and vote on a version of the draft resolution in the coming months. Regardless of how robust the protections of privacy are in the final version, or how strongly the U.S. and its allies will feel bound by it, public opinion is certainly shifting in favor of treating privacy as a human right.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy International are leading a collaboration with hundreds of civil society organizations worldwide on a framework reflecting global consensus on privacy rights called Necessary & Proportionate. That effort reflects a growing global grass-roots movement forming in parallel to the U.N.’s attempt to protect privacy. It remains to be seen whether the world can win the fight against the Biggest Brother history has ever witnessed.

Busting Eight Common Excuses for NSA Mass Surveillance

Busting Eight Common Excuses for NSA Mass 

Surveillance

We’ve heard from lots of folks who are passionately concerned about the NSA’s mass spying, but are struggling to get their friends and family to understand the problem and join the over a half-million people who have demanded change through stopwatching.us and elsewhere.
Of course, you can show them the Stop Watching Us video and this great segment from Stephen Colbert. And if you’d like a detailed refresher on all the ways NSA is conducing mass surveillance, ProPublica has a handy explainer here.
You can also check out this new video from filmmaker Brian Knappenberger (writer and director of We Are Legion: the Story of the Hacktivists):
But you also need to be prepared to respond to the common refrains of folks confused, nonplussed, or simply exhausted from the headlines. So here’s a cheat sheet to help you talk about the NSA spying when you’re with family and friends.
I have nothing to hide from the government, so why should I worry?
There are a few ways to respond to this, depending on what you think will work best for the person raising the question.
  • Point out how mass surveillance leaves you at the mercy of not only the NSA, but also to the DEA, the FBI and even the IRS. We know that the government claims that any evidence of a “crime” can be sent to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. 
  • Tell them that, even if you don’t think you have something to hide, it’s possible the government thinks you do, or can create some concern about you (or your friends or loved ones). There are so many laws and regulations on the books, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said the Congressional Research Service did not have the resources to count them all.  One legal expert has argued that the average person likely commits three felonies a day without ever realizing. So, you may be technically breaking a law you have no idea about.
  • We all benefit from a system that allows privacy. For example, when journalists can speak to sources without the specter of surveillance, helping fuel investigative journalism and the free flow of information. And this is not just a hypothetical—the Department of Justicesubpoenaed the phone records of Associated Press journalists in an effort to track down government whistleblowers. And it’s not just journalists. Activists, political organizers, lawyers, individuals conducting sensitive research, businesses that want to keep their strategies confidential, and many others rely on secure, private, surveillance-free communication.
Isn’t the NSA using the mass spying to stop terrorists?
Even the NSA cannot point to a single terrorist attack they’ve stopped using the Patriot Act phone surveillance program that sweeps up virtually every phone record in the United States. They’ve thrown out many numbers claiming that the information was helpful in some capacity, including repeatedly claiming that it thwarted some 54 attacks, but those numbers have been thoroughly debunked.
The only remaining example the NSA points to is known as the “Zazi case.” However, in that case, the Associated Press reported that the government could have easily stopped the plotwithout the NSA program, under authorities that comply with the Constitution. Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have been saying this for a long time.
That’s the point here: we can stop terrorists with law enforcement authorities that this country has been using for decades. We don’t need to upend the Constitution to keep the nation safe.
The government will not abuse its power.
Some people believe that the government will never abuse its power, especially when the party they support is in office.  You should remind these people that the government has a long history of overstretching its surveillance powers and using that information to try to blackmail people. Example of this include the NSA spying on Martin Luther King Jr., Muhammad Ali, and even some sitting senators in the 1960s. Imagine how Sen. Joe McCarthy’s investigations might have gone if he had access to this kind of spying.
We already have evidence of abuse of power. We know that the NSA analysts were using their surveillance powers to track their ex-wives and husbands, and other love interests. They even had a name for it, LOVEINT.  The FISA court has also cited the NSA for violating or ignoring court orders for years at a time. And those are just self-reported abuses. An independent investigation might reveal even more.
Allowing mass spying is patriotic.
Stopping untargeted seizure of information is one of the key reasons we fought the War of Independence and drafted the Fourth Amendment.  During colonial times, the "crime" was tax evasion—remember the Boston Tea Party?  The British crown issued Writs of Assistance, which were general warrants that allowed the British authorities to search through anyone’s papers in order to find those who were skirting the taxes.  American patriot James Otis Jr. argued against the “hated writs” but lost his case in the British courts.  John Adams noted that from that case, “the child independence was born.”  
Since that time, warrants have had to specify the persons and places searched. Mass surveillance by the NSA does neither.  In short, one of our countries’ founding principles is the prohibition on mass searches and seizures.
Kids today (or my friends) post everything they do on Facebook or Twitter, why should we care if the government can see too?
What people choose to put on Facebook or Twitter (or Instagram or Tumblr or some other service) is almost always curated.  People put the best or sometimes the worst things that happen to them online, but studies show they still keep things private, and restrict the audience for other information.  A new poll shows young people may even be more privacy conscious than older adults.
We all know someone whose Facebook feed continued to show happy pictures even as they went through a terrible breakup or divorce.  The point of privacy is control over the information that is available about you. Some people choose to share more, some choose to share less, but nearly everyone wants the power to pick and choose what information is available about them to their friends and to strangers, like future employers or NSA agents.
Google and Facebook have my information, so why shouldn’t the NSA?
There are many privacy problems with how the giant Internet companies gather and use so much of your personal data. However, Google and Facebook do not have the power to arrest you and, unlike government surveillance, there are other choices for communication tools. For example, you can use DuckDuckGo instead of Google search.
Remember: while we may not like how companies collect a lot of our information, they are not under the same requirement to follow the Fourth Amendment. We need to protect the private information held by companies too, but the Constitution provides a foundation that always protects our communications from the prying eyes of government.
It’s just metadata, so why should I care?
For the mass phone record collection program, the NSA has said it is not “listening in” to telephone calls.  Instead they are collecting a record of everyone you call, who calls you, when you’re on the phone, the length of your phone call, and at times, even your location.
This "metadata" can be as invasive as the content of your conversations. It can reveal your religious and political views, who you are dating (and when you break up), who your spouse and children are, your movements, and even information your closest friends and family don’t know, such as medical conditions.
Additionally, the government is getting more than just metadata. We also know the government has obtained online content, including email, under separate programs, and used the data based on a guess that you are 51 percent likely to be foreign, by scanning large a portion of the total number of emails entering and exiting the United States. Metadata is only a part of the government spying programs.
This sucks, but there’s nothing I can do!
Actually there is plenty you can do! First, join the over half-million others and sign our petition at stopwatching.us. Then call your representative in Congress—there are bills going through Congress right now that could curtail some of this spying and bring real transparency and accountability to the NSA. There are also some that need to be opposed so we don’t end up legalizing much of this illegal surveillance.
There’s lots you can do to fight NSA surveillance. But one of the most important things you can do is explain why this issue is important to friends and family.  So please share this guide widely.